×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Intentional Destruction of Evidence Requires Sanction
The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed a Court of
Claims' denial of a motion for sanctions where prison officials destroyed
video tapes showing that a prisoner was beaten.
The Attica Correctional Facility prisoner sought damages for injuries
caused by guards beating him on two occasions. The prisoner stated he had
requested in writing the video tapes be preserved prior to initiating this
action, and in discovery requested those video tapes. One of the video
tapes was used in a disciplinary proceeding which was later reversed. The
defendants claimed the video tape was unavailable because the disciplinary
record was expunged. The Court noted the defendants did not deny the video
tapes were deliberately destroyed, nor did they provide an exculpatory
explanation for their actions. The appellate court held that deliberate
destruction of evidence without an exculpatory explanation warrants the
imposition of sanctions, and ordered the prisoner's motion for sanctions
be granted by precluding the "defendant from offering any evidence at
trial in opposition to claimant's proof with respect to the incidents that
were the subject of the destroyed video tapes." Costs of the motion were
also granted. See: Livingston v. State, 254 A.D.2d 964, 677 N.Y.S 2d 856
(N.Y. 1998).
Claims' denial of a motion for sanctions where prison officials destroyed
video tapes showing that a prisoner was beaten.
The Attica Correctional Facility prisoner sought damages for injuries
caused by guards beating him on two occasions. The prisoner stated he had
requested in writing the video tapes be preserved prior to initiating this
action, and in discovery requested those video tapes. One of the video
tapes was used in a disciplinary proceeding which was later reversed. The
defendants claimed the video tape was unavailable because the disciplinary
record was expunged. The Court noted the defendants did not deny the video
tapes were deliberately destroyed, nor did they provide an exculpatory
explanation for their actions. The appellate court held that deliberate
destruction of evidence without an exculpatory explanation warrants the
imposition of sanctions, and ordered the prisoner's motion for sanctions
be granted by precluding the "defendant from offering any evidence at
trial in opposition to claimant's proof with respect to the incidents that
were the subject of the destroyed video tapes." Costs of the motion were
also granted. See: Livingston v. State, 254 A.D.2d 964, 677 N.Y.S 2d 856
(N.Y. 1998).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Livingston v. State
| Year | 1998 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 254 A.D.2d 964, 677 N.Y.S 2d 856 (N.Y. 1998). |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Livingston v. New York, 254 A.D.2d 694, 677 N.Y.S.2d 856 (N.Y.App.Div. 4th Dept. 10/02/1998)
[1] SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK
[2] 0973. (Wyoming Co.)
[3] 1998.NY, 254 A.D.2d 694, 677 N.Y.S.2d 856
[4] October 2, 1998
[5] DETROY LIVINGSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 4.) (CLAIM NO. 94539.)
[6] Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Balio And Fallon, JJ.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam Opinion
[8] (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J. - Sanctions.)
[9] OPINION OF THE COURT
[10] Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, commenced this action alleging that he was beaten by correction officers in two separate incidents in the special housing unit, and he seeks damages for the personal injuries he allegedly sustained. He alleged that, on July 10, 1996, while being escorted to a dental appointment, the officers "rammed" his head into an elevator wall and that, on July 11, 1996, while being escorted to the showers, an officer "tackled" him and "slammed" him to the floor. In moving for sanctions based on defendant's alleged deliberate destruction of evidence, claimant stated that videotapes of each incident existed and that he requested in writing that they be preserved before he commenced this action, and he thereafter requested those videotapes in his discovery demand in this action. Claimant alleged that one videotape was used as evidence in a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was initially found guilty. The record establishes that on October 9, 1996, that determination was reversed administratively and a rehearing ordered. There is no indication in the record that a rehearing occurred, but defendant submitted an affirmation stating that no videotapes are available and that no tapes of a "Tier Hearing" exist because the record was expunged.
[11] In opposition to claimant's motion, defendant did not deny that it deliberately destroyed the videotapes and did not offer an exculpatory explanation for its actions. It is well settled that the penalties of CPLR 3126 may be applied where a party deliberately destroys evidence (see, Hyosung [Am.] v Woodcrest Fabrics, 106 AD2d 298, 299, appeal dismissed64 NY2d 934; Ferraro v Koncal Assocs., 97 AD2d 429; see also, Ristenpadt v K & L Realty, 199 AD2d 312). By destroying the videotapes and failing to provide an exculpatory explanation, and by refusing to comply with claimant's discovery requests, defendant has engaged in deliberate conduct that warrants the imposition of a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126. The Court of Claims therefore abused its discretion in denying claimant's motion for sanctions. We grant claimant's motion and preclude defendant from offering any evidence at trial in opposition to claimant's proof with respect to the incidents that were the subject of the destroyed videotapes.
[12] (Filed Oct. 2, 1998.)
[1] SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK
[2] 0973. (Wyoming Co.)
[3] 1998.NY, 254 A.D.2d 694, 677 N.Y.S.2d 856
[4] October 2, 1998
[5] DETROY LIVINGSTON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 4.) (CLAIM NO. 94539.)
[6] Denman, P. J., Pine, Wisner, Balio And Fallon, JJ.
[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam Opinion
[8] (Appeal from Order of Court of Claims, NeMoyer, J. - Sanctions.)
[9] OPINION OF THE COURT
[10] Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, commenced this action alleging that he was beaten by correction officers in two separate incidents in the special housing unit, and he seeks damages for the personal injuries he allegedly sustained. He alleged that, on July 10, 1996, while being escorted to a dental appointment, the officers "rammed" his head into an elevator wall and that, on July 11, 1996, while being escorted to the showers, an officer "tackled" him and "slammed" him to the floor. In moving for sanctions based on defendant's alleged deliberate destruction of evidence, claimant stated that videotapes of each incident existed and that he requested in writing that they be preserved before he commenced this action, and he thereafter requested those videotapes in his discovery demand in this action. Claimant alleged that one videotape was used as evidence in a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was initially found guilty. The record establishes that on October 9, 1996, that determination was reversed administratively and a rehearing ordered. There is no indication in the record that a rehearing occurred, but defendant submitted an affirmation stating that no videotapes are available and that no tapes of a "Tier Hearing" exist because the record was expunged.
[11] In opposition to claimant's motion, defendant did not deny that it deliberately destroyed the videotapes and did not offer an exculpatory explanation for its actions. It is well settled that the penalties of CPLR 3126 may be applied where a party deliberately destroys evidence (see, Hyosung [Am.] v Woodcrest Fabrics, 106 AD2d 298, 299, appeal dismissed64 NY2d 934; Ferraro v Koncal Assocs., 97 AD2d 429; see also, Ristenpadt v K & L Realty, 199 AD2d 312). By destroying the videotapes and failing to provide an exculpatory explanation, and by refusing to comply with claimant's discovery requests, defendant has engaged in deliberate conduct that warrants the imposition of a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126. The Court of Claims therefore abused its discretion in denying claimant's motion for sanctions. We grant claimant's motion and preclude defendant from offering any evidence at trial in opposition to claimant's proof with respect to the incidents that were the subject of the destroyed videotapes.
[12] (Filed Oct. 2, 1998.)